Part 2
Review of the shares
Despite the modest majority share contribution of business, the business advocates lose no opportunity to protest that this is unreasonable. In a Vancouver Board of Trade publication dated March 16, 2005 (found on their website) we see the following:
"Businesses pay huge subsidies in property taxes. Property taxes paid by business
to City governments-and particularly the civic property tax on business properties in the City of Vancouver are badly distorted."
The fact is that the proportions as stated above can scarcely be described as "huge" and they are to be found everywhere in the Country:
"The foregoing property tax comparisons have not separated the residential from
non residential components. This has been dictated by the fact that the data
for interprovincial comparative purposes are almost never separated according to
those two property classifications.
In addition comparisons of effective
property tax rates on residential versus non residential properties always
indicate higher effective tax rates on the non residential sector. This is not
surprizing: it has been a deliberate policy objective of all Provincial
governments, either through their assessment practices or through the imposition
of differential property tax rates, in effect if not by explicit policy, to
impose higher taxes on the non residential sector."
[Property Taxation in Canada. Harry M Kitchen, 1992, P.14]
According to the city manager's office, the distribution of shares has not changed greatly since the 1980s; as of 1984 residential paid 39.7% of the property tax yearly levy, while business paid 54.7%; and at 2004 residential paid 43.3% while business paid 52.8%. Council has long had a policy of maintaining fixed shares for the contribution of each of the residential and business sectors but there have been changes since 1995. The principal reason for year to year differences is that particularly since 1995 business interests have been able to persuade the Council that the existing shares were somehow unfair and over a number of years (at least five times since 1995) the Council has systematically transferred a series of share amounts from business to residential to a total of many millions of dollars making for an increasing burden to be paid by the residential class. The business share of the LEVY has gone from 54.7% in 1984 to 52.8% in 2004; while the residential share has gone from 39.7% in 1984 to 43.3% in 2004.
[Policy Report to Committee on CS&B; April 28, 2005; Appendix D page 2 of 7]
In other words, the homeowners' property tax burden has been increased while the burden for business has been decreased by five transfers over the past ten years, although the statement on shares does not show the absolute sums in terms of tax rates. In that matter we find that the tax rate for business has gone from $13.64 in 1984 to $16.75 in 2004. The tax rate for residential in dollar amounts has gone from $5.20 in 1984 to $3.06 in 2004.
[Policy Report Committee on CS&B; April 28, 2005]
Business usually states the amount of its payments as a ratio or tax rate which is the amount to be collected from the class compared to the total value of all the properties in the class. While business may be required, as at present, to pay a 56% share of the total amount of the property tax, there are other relevant numbers that complicate the picture. There are about 12,341 businesses paying the tax in Vancouver but 156,387 properties that are residential.
[Response to inquiry to City of Vancouver Finance Department, February 28,2006]
Further, the rate of change in property values over time in the city is often not closely matched, so that business properties may increase in value a a rate much quicker than residential, or vice versa. Or groups of taxpayers within a class may find that their property values are increasing much quicker than some others, or than the business, class, or than some other residential areas in the city. The resulting figures may also be clouded by relief measures that are put in place in some years but not others ,such as measures to defer the taxes that are paid, as by a delay, or an averaging method over three years.
In result, the working of this arithmetic produces a situation in which the class share of business may be in the 50% range but the tax payments required will be a rate which is the proportion of the tax to be paid by the class divided by the total value of all the properties in the class, and that rate multiplied against the value of the particular property in units of $1000. Business now claims that what it pays compared to what residential pays in terms of that rate is a difference of over 5:1 and should be 3:1 or even 1:1. The rate now in place has the business class paying at a rate of over $16 for each $1000 of any particular property value; while residential would b e paying at a rate of just over $3 for each $1000 of property value.
If we look at other towns in BC, we can see that the division of property tax into shares and the practice of business being required to pay an amount which may turn out to be a number of times the residential rate (not the class share) can be found throughout the Province. A summary table of municipalities, their shares and payments was attached to a publication by the Board of Trade at February 19, 2002, in a letter sent to a Provincial Government Minister.
[Letter February 19,2002. Vancouver Board of Trade to Ted Nebbeling ,Minister of State for the Community Charter. see Board of Trade web page.]
The list was based on "2001 Business to Residential Tax Rate Comparisons" and contains 153 communities in BC which appears to be all the communities of even modest size. The largest ratio in terms of amount actually payable by businesses was Kimberley at approximately 7:1 with Vancouver third at 4.9:1. The remaining communities go all the way down to 1:1. The communities that are less than 2 to 1 number approximately 30 of the 153. In Tahsis for instance, business as a class was to pay no more than residential, in property tax money at 2001.
One recalls that this is a list based on the tax rate, and so is a comparison of what the business taxpayer is obliged to pay when they multiply the tax rate for business by the value of their property in units of $1000. It is not a comparison of property tax shares. The source of this table is not given, so we are assuming that it is taken from a Government source. We note that in this document the Board of Trade is calling for a shares distribution of 2.5:1 although there is no obvious connection between the tax rate cited for Vancouver and that rate, and no explanation at all for the departure from the figure of 3:1 that business recommended to KPMG accountants in 1995 when a study was done by the accountants for the City on the matter. The figure or ratio of 3:1 is also spoken of today in business broadsides and letters to government. It appears this figure is not based on history, rates in BC or Canada generally, or rates in accord with any accounting convention. It is just picked out of the air.
Part 3 to follow
Saturday, September 1, 2007
PROPERTY TAX IN VANCOUVER 1
Unfair to Residents
Part 1 of
For years business advocates in Vancouver have been complaining against a particular tax. When the facts are examined it is difficult to understand why. This tax is a small burden even if business had to bear it. In the end it is probably less than 2.5% of the total burden of taxes on business. It is a burden that has been declining for more than forty years. It is a tax for which business has already been provided with many benefits by the City. It is a tax that business will pass on to its customers. It is a tax, in the first instance, that business, unlike the homeowner, is able to deduct from its taxable income. This makes the intensity of the fight waged by business very questionable.
What can explain the extreme statements that are made by business advocates like the Board of Trade. the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Tax Federation, and political figures who read the pronouncements of such groups, and adopt them. Such groups have produced a whole series of unreasonable and distorted claims, about this tax, the property tax. These claims about its importance and weight have long since been dismissed by respectable studies including those produced by right wing groups such as the Canada West Foundation (Calgary), as well as by the leading scholars on the subject of property taxation in Canada.
The General Situation
In general, property is taxed in Vancouver in much the same way as it is in thousands of municipalities across Canada, including all the big cities. The amount of property tax, and the fact that businesses are treated as a separate class, as are homeowners, with almost all of th total city property tax recovered by fixed shares, contributed by each of these classes, business and residential, is much the same across the country, and this position has existed for many decades.
The property to be taxed , is divided into classes. In BC the amount of contribution from each class is fixed and may be varied by the municipality although it is established in the first place by Provincial statute. The municipalities in BC have the freedom to fix the proportion of the total tax or LEVY of funds required each year that will be paid by each of the two main property classes. The city can change some of the other classes that exist, small ones, as well, but these small contributors have special rules and formulas that are often set by other bodies or other legislation of the Province or by historical tradition. They only amount to 2% to 5% of the total yearly operating requirement or LEVY of the City.
We will not deal with them here. There is also a large school tax, but since the Province sets this tax, not the City, we do not deal with that here as the City appears to be a collector by compulsion of law, the Provincial law.
The classes of property in BC are created by a Provincial Act (the Assessment Act) which also establishes an independent Assessment Commission that decides the fair market value of all properties in the Province on an annual basis. With the Commission providing an independent valuation, the municipalities are then permitted to vary the property tax to be obtained from each of the classes of property owners. In the case of Vancouver this is done in a special Act, the Vancouver Charter.
Although there are eight classes, only two account for 98% of the property tax, and these are Residential, Class 01; and Business, Class 06. It is not clear how the smaller classes fit into this picture at 2% to 5% of the total amount of the LEVY since the figures vary a little from one source to another as to what they amount to.
[Task Force on Property
Taxation. City of Vancouver./ Report to Council; April, 22,1994 at pp. 11 to 13]
While these two big classes, business and residential, amount to almost all of the property tax, the shares are not equal, and this seems to be the basis of the continual agitation by business, which has obtained many favors from the City. The share of the property tax that is paid by business is greater than the share that is paid by homeowners. Referring to these classes as residential and business, the shares are 44% and 56% respectively. The policy of the City has been to try to keep the shares constant, but property values have increased within the residential share more rapidly than in the business share, and the ratio of business to residential is about 1:12 in property numbers so that there is a big difference between the shares of each class and the actual payments of the members of each class.
[City of Vancouver Policy Report April 28,2005-Director of Finance to Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets; and- Task Force on Property Taxation, 1994, page 13]
This distribution of property tax in which the property tax has classes of those who pay, that business pays more than residential, and that the two are treated separately from the other classes is also typical across the Province and the country. The actual proportions vary a great deal, as would be expected with each municipality able to set these proportions and change them, year to year, as their Councils may decide.
Part 2 to come
Part 1 of
For years business advocates in Vancouver have been complaining against a particular tax. When the facts are examined it is difficult to understand why. This tax is a small burden even if business had to bear it. In the end it is probably less than 2.5% of the total burden of taxes on business. It is a burden that has been declining for more than forty years. It is a tax for which business has already been provided with many benefits by the City. It is a tax that business will pass on to its customers. It is a tax, in the first instance, that business, unlike the homeowner, is able to deduct from its taxable income. This makes the intensity of the fight waged by business very questionable.
What can explain the extreme statements that are made by business advocates like the Board of Trade. the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Tax Federation, and political figures who read the pronouncements of such groups, and adopt them. Such groups have produced a whole series of unreasonable and distorted claims, about this tax, the property tax. These claims about its importance and weight have long since been dismissed by respectable studies including those produced by right wing groups such as the Canada West Foundation (Calgary), as well as by the leading scholars on the subject of property taxation in Canada.
The General Situation
In general, property is taxed in Vancouver in much the same way as it is in thousands of municipalities across Canada, including all the big cities. The amount of property tax, and the fact that businesses are treated as a separate class, as are homeowners, with almost all of th total city property tax recovered by fixed shares, contributed by each of these classes, business and residential, is much the same across the country, and this position has existed for many decades.
The property to be taxed , is divided into classes. In BC the amount of contribution from each class is fixed and may be varied by the municipality although it is established in the first place by Provincial statute. The municipalities in BC have the freedom to fix the proportion of the total tax or LEVY of funds required each year that will be paid by each of the two main property classes. The city can change some of the other classes that exist, small ones, as well, but these small contributors have special rules and formulas that are often set by other bodies or other legislation of the Province or by historical tradition. They only amount to 2% to 5% of the total yearly operating requirement or LEVY of the City.
We will not deal with them here. There is also a large school tax, but since the Province sets this tax, not the City, we do not deal with that here as the City appears to be a collector by compulsion of law, the Provincial law.
The classes of property in BC are created by a Provincial Act (the Assessment Act) which also establishes an independent Assessment Commission that decides the fair market value of all properties in the Province on an annual basis. With the Commission providing an independent valuation, the municipalities are then permitted to vary the property tax to be obtained from each of the classes of property owners. In the case of Vancouver this is done in a special Act, the Vancouver Charter.
Although there are eight classes, only two account for 98% of the property tax, and these are Residential, Class 01; and Business, Class 06. It is not clear how the smaller classes fit into this picture at 2% to 5% of the total amount of the LEVY since the figures vary a little from one source to another as to what they amount to.
[Task Force on Property
Taxation. City of Vancouver./ Report to Council; April, 22,1994 at pp. 11 to 13]
While these two big classes, business and residential, amount to almost all of the property tax, the shares are not equal, and this seems to be the basis of the continual agitation by business, which has obtained many favors from the City. The share of the property tax that is paid by business is greater than the share that is paid by homeowners. Referring to these classes as residential and business, the shares are 44% and 56% respectively. The policy of the City has been to try to keep the shares constant, but property values have increased within the residential share more rapidly than in the business share, and the ratio of business to residential is about 1:12 in property numbers so that there is a big difference between the shares of each class and the actual payments of the members of each class.
[City of Vancouver Policy Report April 28,2005-Director of Finance to Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets; and- Task Force on Property Taxation, 1994, page 13]
This distribution of property tax in which the property tax has classes of those who pay, that business pays more than residential, and that the two are treated separately from the other classes is also typical across the Province and the country. The actual proportions vary a great deal, as would be expected with each municipality able to set these proportions and change them, year to year, as their Councils may decide.
Part 2 to come
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Harper's Boys in the Alley
Just when we were starting to think the main thing wrong with the Conservatives is their leader, Harper, they come roaring up with a ferocious reminder that they really are a dangerous bunch who really do not know how to use a knife and fork.
In the interior of BC a current Member of Parliament, a Conservative, is helping a new Conservative candidate to run for office in the next election. The present MP for the riding however is a member of the NDP, one whose popularity among voters has risen with each of the past two elections.
The Conservative MP now helping out the newly minted Conservative candidate, has said to listeners to a radio show not to bother with their elected MP, and if they want to approach government they should contact the new candidate, who is presently the mayor of a small town in the riding. This Conservative MP, Dick Harris, said that constituents would have a great benefit from having direct contact with the government which they have not had since 2004 ( because they have twice elected an NDP MP). That NDP MP, Nathan Cullen said he was floored by the vulgarity of Dick Harris who is "suggesting that the whole voting process is almost unnecessary by the Conservative perspective... because they will just simply appoint whom they wish to hear from as opposed to whom the people have chosen..."
Again we see that at heart this bunch is really the Reform crowd. They do not believe in democracy at all. They believe only in power. Let loose with a majority in power in Ottawa they would be as reliable as a bank robber let loose in an empty bank with the tills and vault stuffed with cash, and not a guard in sight. What the heck, if there are none but themselves to guard the bank, who cares about anyone else. They don't. Harper is a very bad thing. Harper's near gangster supporters are just as bad. Pretty soon they would decide that we do not really need elections either, in fact what is the point of a vote once they have power. People can always write to them, couldn't they. Sure.
In the interior of BC a current Member of Parliament, a Conservative, is helping a new Conservative candidate to run for office in the next election. The present MP for the riding however is a member of the NDP, one whose popularity among voters has risen with each of the past two elections.
The Conservative MP now helping out the newly minted Conservative candidate, has said to listeners to a radio show not to bother with their elected MP, and if they want to approach government they should contact the new candidate, who is presently the mayor of a small town in the riding. This Conservative MP, Dick Harris, said that constituents would have a great benefit from having direct contact with the government which they have not had since 2004 ( because they have twice elected an NDP MP). That NDP MP, Nathan Cullen said he was floored by the vulgarity of Dick Harris who is "suggesting that the whole voting process is almost unnecessary by the Conservative perspective... because they will just simply appoint whom they wish to hear from as opposed to whom the people have chosen..."
Again we see that at heart this bunch is really the Reform crowd. They do not believe in democracy at all. They believe only in power. Let loose with a majority in power in Ottawa they would be as reliable as a bank robber let loose in an empty bank with the tills and vault stuffed with cash, and not a guard in sight. What the heck, if there are none but themselves to guard the bank, who cares about anyone else. They don't. Harper is a very bad thing. Harper's near gangster supporters are just as bad. Pretty soon they would decide that we do not really need elections either, in fact what is the point of a vote once they have power. People can always write to them, couldn't they. Sure.
THE URBAN BULLY
PART 4
Outside the workplace, as in responding to academic or polemical bullying, you do not answer the bully directly other than by a short sharp rebuke, as in :"your comments are so grossly offensive that I will protest to your employer [editor, publisher, patron or promoter] rather than waste time on you." Then attack the audience, and that is very definitely not your audience but that of the bully, perhaps better called his protectors. Think carefully about exactly who that audience is, and think about what will disturb that specific audience, do not waste time on general motherhood issues. Instead of saying, "how can you editors publish such a bully," it would be better to say, "you can see from these quotes that this bully has no regard for his readers or the editors who have bought his material. Perhaps he has grown too big for his britches." Or "you can see from these comparison quotes that he just takes material from other writers and crudely uses it as his own. You may have liability from this."
However, to directly answer the bully, once identification has been made, is an act that can only be described as sincerely stupid. It will give the bully a great opportunity, which it will seize upon with joy, to kick you all around the floor.
Remember, the bully is not concerned with truth at all, just with the security of its audience and the certainty that it does have its claws fastened on a real victim. The only answer that is useful, as stated here, is one short, sharp and tight invitation to go to hell. Beyond that, let the bully get anxious while you attack the audience. And do not make any attempt at all to construct elegant argument based on reference to logical fallacies, or invite the bully to be "rational" (are you kidding?), or try to develop an imaginary round of verbal fencing (you may as well flounce across the floor in a tutu), or make phoney, nice or polite, or all the other chicken hearted things that intellectuals tend to do. To level a bully is a socially valuable function, so don't fool around, get into it and cut meat.
Every few days, for a week or so,get up and read the motto you have printed out, such as who among this creeps' possible audience shall I write to today, or who among my supporters shall I ask to attack his audience. In this effort persistence will pay off hugely. But who, if not you, will supply the persistence, and do not say "form letters".
Find something in the bully's production that should be corrected, if it is a matter of expert knowledge, and try to find some expert to do a short study, or more likely, tell you the chapter and verse of exactly why it is wrong. When you get these types of problems really understood then it is possible to write about them in a way that is unanswerable, often using material right at hand, instead of pages of footnotes. But this requires genuine intellectual work, which must must be done by someone for you (tricky) or by you yourself. If you want to show up the bully as an inferior specimen, you will surely have to make a superior effort.
Get close to the enemy. Look up the bully's other work, which is wonderfully possible on the internet today. Read its productions and get a feel for its proclivities and (usually) switches of position with fashion. Bullies do not care about truth, they just want to know what their likely audience wants to hear so that they can produce that and with it scout for victims and adopt the audiences pet hatreds in their own victim pursuits. So their "research" tends to drop off as soon as they can find something they can use to beat a victim over the head with. If they find a quote to the effect that there is a mass of research supporting their position, or they can find a claim based on apparent authority, they are not likely to go into that research to see if it exists and is reliable.
And since the main priority for the bully is to arm itself to attack the present victim, you are quite likely to find the bully worked the other side of the street in some piece a few years back. The consistent theme among literary bullies is that they will attack from the security of the established position in business and technology whatever that position is at the moment. That is where the security is, so that is where the bully will nest.
If by some unhappy chance the bully is on your side of an issue, then you should spare no effort to cut down the SOB and plow the ground he stood on with salt. Pro Labor bullies ALWAYS end up on the side of the worst of the exploiters, and when you consider how totally individual and selfish are their concerns you can see why. You can make book on their proposals such that going against what they propose has a pretty good chance of being the right choice.
There is one more thing. If you find that a bully quite suddenly tries to make friends or becomes polite, watch out. That just means the bully has intuitively felt that you are perhaps not a real victim and it wants to cautiously scout around a bit to see what you have got. If you let such a bully get close to you it will suddenly attack and give you quite a start. Remember, bullies are not like ordinary people, do not really want to resolve issues, and at bottom are actually mentally twisted a bit.
We are working into a time in society when we absolutely must have rational debates about a lot of very confusing stuff. It is definitely a time to make short work of bullies.
Conclusion of the Post on Bullies
Gramps
Outside the workplace, as in responding to academic or polemical bullying, you do not answer the bully directly other than by a short sharp rebuke, as in :"your comments are so grossly offensive that I will protest to your employer [editor, publisher, patron or promoter] rather than waste time on you." Then attack the audience, and that is very definitely not your audience but that of the bully, perhaps better called his protectors. Think carefully about exactly who that audience is, and think about what will disturb that specific audience, do not waste time on general motherhood issues. Instead of saying, "how can you editors publish such a bully," it would be better to say, "you can see from these quotes that this bully has no regard for his readers or the editors who have bought his material. Perhaps he has grown too big for his britches." Or "you can see from these comparison quotes that he just takes material from other writers and crudely uses it as his own. You may have liability from this."
However, to directly answer the bully, once identification has been made, is an act that can only be described as sincerely stupid. It will give the bully a great opportunity, which it will seize upon with joy, to kick you all around the floor.
Remember, the bully is not concerned with truth at all, just with the security of its audience and the certainty that it does have its claws fastened on a real victim. The only answer that is useful, as stated here, is one short, sharp and tight invitation to go to hell. Beyond that, let the bully get anxious while you attack the audience. And do not make any attempt at all to construct elegant argument based on reference to logical fallacies, or invite the bully to be "rational" (are you kidding?), or try to develop an imaginary round of verbal fencing (you may as well flounce across the floor in a tutu), or make phoney, nice or polite, or all the other chicken hearted things that intellectuals tend to do. To level a bully is a socially valuable function, so don't fool around, get into it and cut meat.
Every few days, for a week or so,get up and read the motto you have printed out, such as who among this creeps' possible audience shall I write to today, or who among my supporters shall I ask to attack his audience. In this effort persistence will pay off hugely. But who, if not you, will supply the persistence, and do not say "form letters".
Find something in the bully's production that should be corrected, if it is a matter of expert knowledge, and try to find some expert to do a short study, or more likely, tell you the chapter and verse of exactly why it is wrong. When you get these types of problems really understood then it is possible to write about them in a way that is unanswerable, often using material right at hand, instead of pages of footnotes. But this requires genuine intellectual work, which must must be done by someone for you (tricky) or by you yourself. If you want to show up the bully as an inferior specimen, you will surely have to make a superior effort.
Get close to the enemy. Look up the bully's other work, which is wonderfully possible on the internet today. Read its productions and get a feel for its proclivities and (usually) switches of position with fashion. Bullies do not care about truth, they just want to know what their likely audience wants to hear so that they can produce that and with it scout for victims and adopt the audiences pet hatreds in their own victim pursuits. So their "research" tends to drop off as soon as they can find something they can use to beat a victim over the head with. If they find a quote to the effect that there is a mass of research supporting their position, or they can find a claim based on apparent authority, they are not likely to go into that research to see if it exists and is reliable.
And since the main priority for the bully is to arm itself to attack the present victim, you are quite likely to find the bully worked the other side of the street in some piece a few years back. The consistent theme among literary bullies is that they will attack from the security of the established position in business and technology whatever that position is at the moment. That is where the security is, so that is where the bully will nest.
If by some unhappy chance the bully is on your side of an issue, then you should spare no effort to cut down the SOB and plow the ground he stood on with salt. Pro Labor bullies ALWAYS end up on the side of the worst of the exploiters, and when you consider how totally individual and selfish are their concerns you can see why. You can make book on their proposals such that going against what they propose has a pretty good chance of being the right choice.
There is one more thing. If you find that a bully quite suddenly tries to make friends or becomes polite, watch out. That just means the bully has intuitively felt that you are perhaps not a real victim and it wants to cautiously scout around a bit to see what you have got. If you let such a bully get close to you it will suddenly attack and give you quite a start. Remember, bullies are not like ordinary people, do not really want to resolve issues, and at bottom are actually mentally twisted a bit.
We are working into a time in society when we absolutely must have rational debates about a lot of very confusing stuff. It is definitely a time to make short work of bullies.
Conclusion of the Post on Bullies
Gramps
Monday, August 27, 2007
The House Servant
Today we hear that the Attorney General of the USA has resigned, and there he was all by himself at a podium, uttering the same words we have heard so often. What is this,no. 7 or is it 70 of the Disciples of Strauss and their pals swept into discard since last November. All it took, it seems, was the switch of a couple of dozen seats in the Congress and the historical broom started its awesome sweeping.
American political process is confused and raucous, but there is no escaping the majesty of their Constitutional Gods sweeping out the stable. I begin to wonder, is it possible it will reach all the way to the black and menacing figure of Cheney.
Already it seems that a harsh picture begins to emerge. One recalls Walt Disney's Sorcerer's Apprentice. When the apprentice calls up a spell to have the broom load the pails with water from the well and save him the work, he has no ability to stop them and soon the Sorcerer's house is flooded. Then the Sorcerer comes home.
So who is coming to the White House to take over from the hapless but bloody minded and very nasty little boy who has been causing such havoc these 7 years. Is it Bush the Elder and his group of pals from the oil industry, and other governing circles. The people who dress up in togas from time to time and wander around manicured gardens pretending they rule the world. Maybe the world is sort of like the fantasies that are so popular in movies, and they do fit. It is just the rest of us that are stuck in the mud.
They all remind me of a startling glimpse into that social world by Fitzgerald:
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy-they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
Shedding his killers one by one Junior Bush still has quite a ways to go, yet we have already stumbled into a swamp where the media have no idea what to say, anymore. Do you suppose they might start telling the truth, just because there is nothing else to say.
American political process is confused and raucous, but there is no escaping the majesty of their Constitutional Gods sweeping out the stable. I begin to wonder, is it possible it will reach all the way to the black and menacing figure of Cheney.
Already it seems that a harsh picture begins to emerge. One recalls Walt Disney's Sorcerer's Apprentice. When the apprentice calls up a spell to have the broom load the pails with water from the well and save him the work, he has no ability to stop them and soon the Sorcerer's house is flooded. Then the Sorcerer comes home.
So who is coming to the White House to take over from the hapless but bloody minded and very nasty little boy who has been causing such havoc these 7 years. Is it Bush the Elder and his group of pals from the oil industry, and other governing circles. The people who dress up in togas from time to time and wander around manicured gardens pretending they rule the world. Maybe the world is sort of like the fantasies that are so popular in movies, and they do fit. It is just the rest of us that are stuck in the mud.
They all remind me of a startling glimpse into that social world by Fitzgerald:
"They were careless people, Tom and Daisy-they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."
Shedding his killers one by one Junior Bush still has quite a ways to go, yet we have already stumbled into a swamp where the media have no idea what to say, anymore. Do you suppose they might start telling the truth, just because there is nothing else to say.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
PROMISES PROMISES
PART 3 of 3
Facts and Fantasies on auto emissions
We begin to see that far from being at least a good start at reducing tail pipe emissions, the 2005 Voluntary Agreement injures the public interest. Here is a list of just some of the defects we have observed:
1. The agreement is primarily an intention to note or witness what is happening in the auto making field that would be done, and largely has been done, without any agreement.
2. The level of gas efficiency has not been going up, it has been going down for over 15 years and this agreement masks that fact while providing no improvements of its own.
3. This agreement is fundamentally BAU or Business As Usual in car making. If we need to reduce emissions in a serious way, we are deceived by it.
4. As a result of the way we have watched our Federal Government proceed Canada is pretty well at the bottom of the performance list for western nations. Only the USA is worse, though we are not even sure of that. Apart from Kyoto treaty obligations we are a long way from Japan or the European Union. It is stated in one of the best studies of the whole question: "The United States and Canada have the lowest standards in term of fleet average fuel economy rating, and they have the highest greenhouse gas emission rates based on the EU testing procedure".
(Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Vehicle Fuel efficiency Standards for Canada. Pollution Probe. February 2005. p.142)
5. By supporting this Agreement the Federal Government is assisting the car makers to avoid reductions they could and should be making, and hiding from Canadians that the Government already has a law that it can and should Proclaim, the 1976 Regulatory statute we have had on the books since then, and move promptly to regulate standards and enforce them.
6. In going along with the car makers the Federal government has allowed itself to be gradually moved away from legitimate public policy in reducing harmful emissions and into the promotion of sales interests of the car makers, which are not regulatory interests at all. The development of improved air conditioning in cars will reduce emissions overall by about 1.2 Mt CO2 e (as we can see from the California university study, Impact of Canada's Voluntary Agreement. U of California (Davis). Institute of Transportation Studies.N.P. Lutsey 2006) but that object is pursued to please buyers, not to cut emissions. There is no need to push the car makers to please customers, as they are regularly doing that anyhow. We are permitting a car maker distraction activity to deceive the public.
7. Much the same can be said about the gradual substitution of lighter parts or new materials in the construction of car engines and bodies, which is also contributing a small amount to reductions (or increased power), as we can learn by review of the Lutsey study. It is however ridiculous for the Government to stand beside the industry ad men as they brag about the marvels of tail pipe emission reductions being achieved when the little that is done is simply the normal development of autos and is not undertaken to reduce emissions.
To do that would require the setting of standards that forced the car makers to substitute emission reduction for power increases, which they do not wish to do and do not have to do at present. Thus power improvement itself will lead to a modest 0.9 Mt CO2e emission reduction over the whole period of 1999 to 2010, but we need to do a great deal more than that. The same goes for variable valve lift, direct gasoline injection, cylinder deactivation and the other high tech terms we have been fed.
Despite industry bragging in the web page of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturer's Association, we have not adopted a non-contentious way to bypass controversy and magically deliver painless emission control, we have just put ourselves in the position of suckers applauding carnival pitchmen while those elected to serve our true interests have gone along for the ride. If there have been any real improvements that is due to the influence of US standards development, which died over a decade ago excepting the push from California. However the Americans have not been heroes either, and we bump along at the bottom of world efforts, with them.
8. US standards are now voluntary as the Bush administration doggedly seeks to sabotage and delay any standard setting, though the EPA is going forward with Tier 2 now that the Supreme Court has largely brushed aside the Bush administration hindrance that delayed Federal Standards for CO2. While California has projected improvements in its 2006 legislation, it is contested by the car makers in the Courts. It is not that the goal of a 1/3 improvement over current standards (if they were being met) in the US, or the goal of 120 grams per kilometer in the EU, ( a standard being fought over now), cannot be realized. It is a question of the public will involved. against the opposition of the car makers.
9. The car makers use many dodges to fight against standards improvements. One is the claim that Canada is not a big enough market to do anything that varies from what the Americans do. We have seen that all kinds of different initiatives are happening in the US with individual states adopting the California law of 2006 (they can be called CAFE plus, or Tier 2) because of the failure of the Federal government to act. California does have regulation now and its population is similar to Canada. If they can cause the car makers to get moving on standards, and they certainly have, why can we not do so. We are a separate sovereign country and should have less difficulty than California. There some movement in some Canadian provinces to pick up the California legislation (BC).
10.There is good reason for suspicion that the car makers in Canada will not meet their promise to deliver 5.3 Mt CO2e even though they intended to do it without moving a muscle, so to speak. This is because they must first of all get the Federal government to agree to give them credit for everything that has happened to cars, which normally would be politically assured.
As Canadian federal politics is now developing that could become a very unpopular move for a government heading into an election before 2010. We do not know what the individual car makers have been doing, and it may be their industry association does not either, and never will. If the agreement becomes no longer a useful publicity tool, the car makers will simply drop it, behind a screen of lies about how the government has not been reasonable. Then our government will have no agreement, no progress that is provable, no data, no data bank for the past 10 years from industry, and no knowledge of what each company has been doing.
Of course it could be that the government has been collecting data all this time. One imagines federal inspectors secreting this or that car and measuring the tail pipe product. But it is pretty hard to get industry or company wide averages out of that. So it may be the case that the sooner the government tells the car makers to take their agreement and shove it, the better.
11. We can see some of the double dealing we can expect from the car makers in a few items already. For example, the Tier 2 regulations coming up in the US. Will the car makers get credit for those, say in nitrous oxides? One industry statement is referred to in the Lutsey study to the effect that there is "no double billing for NOx" but in a different statement it is set out that the Canadian auto industry expects to be credited with GHG emissions reductions for their actions in response to the Tier 2 standards ( in this case established for pollutant criteria control).
12. The same problem will surely come up with respect to fuel substitution such as blending ethanol in gasoline. A government official has stated that this is outside the Voluntary agreement but that is probably because the government has its own program to promote ethanol, so it would not want to see any improvement credited to two different programs. But who is ready to bet that the car makers will not claim it, and have already figured on a credit for it. The California study estimates that ethanol will reduce emissions by 0.68% in one year, 2010, and this is about 12.8% of the total of 5.3 Mt CO2e the car makers have promised.
13. And there are wild cards that the car makers will surely make a fuss about. Real world driving is not the same a lab conditions tests, and so standards need to allow for reality. There is plenty to argue about here. The Voluntary agreement assumes a gap of 20% but each new study seem to be widening the gap. Will our government throw up their hands when the car makers go off into a long argument about that.This item may amount to as much as 1.12% of the reduction (21.2% of the total 5.3 Mt CO2e) car makers promise.
14. It has turned out that tire pressure has a role in emission reduction and drivers need to be educated about that (apparently it could amount to as much as 0.5% of on road fuel use. The car makers in Canada have already announced they will be claiming for that. Can we doubt they will put in a claim for the One Tonne Challenge (a program since abandoned by the new Conservative government in its determination to get rid of whatever the last government was doing), and other driver education programs. But how can car makers claim a credit for an improvement in emission reduction associated with a government mounted consumer education program? They will.
15. So we can see, following the detailed account in the California university study, the car makers can meet the promise of 5.3 Mt CO2e if they are credited with everything that has reduced emissions, whether it was the result of outdated reference case projections from 1999, or involved technologies already in use when the Voluntary agreement was signed, whether it was already set to occur due to previous agreements or would occur regardless of the Voluntary agreement (Tier 2,on road real life driving adjustments, harmonized fuel consumption with USA, ethanol adjustment) or whether the result of regulations made for reasons other than climate change such as Tier 2 for specific pollutants and tire monitoring programs for safety reasons, even driver education.
There is plenty for government to resist there in the Government-Industry committee set up by the Voluntary Agreement to "adjust" the claims of the car makers to ensure "fairness". It is hard to see even the pro-business Harper regime going for all of it, but where are we if they do? And how will we know what they are about to do until after they have done it and put out the usual joint statement.
16. If the industry obtains credits, as described in the California study, since the Government-industry group that is supposed to be functioning under the Voluntary agreement has not published anything, then the result can be a little greater that 5.3 Mt CO2e. The industry will make its "contribution". The Lutsey study also considers a more strict definition for the car makers to match. This one would be based on new emission reductions that did not include already established programs as GHG reduction initiatives. In other words this program would not credit the already established vehicle fuel and technology trends. In this case the target of 5.3 Mt CO2e reduction by 2010 is not met.
17. The conclusions of the California study are sobering:
"The question arises as to whether the intent of the MOU is to witness a 5.3 Mt CO2e emission reduction or to actually be responsible for causing a 5.3 Mt CO2e emission reduction. It is apparently possible for the MOU agreement to be met with little or no impact on GHG emissions from Canada's fleet. If the MOU oversight committee decides to credit each of the mechanisms discussed, the primary role of the Canada GHG MOU would be to simply re-label a series of already-established programs as a GHG reduction initiative. "
Impact of Canada's Voluntary Agreement Lutsey U of Cal (Davis) 2006 at p.31
18. For the reasons set out Gramps concludes that the industry will try to push the government into accepting industry credit that makes the Agreement a mockery. Whether it succeeds or fails depends on public pressure on the issue of accountability. Either way, we have lost a lot of time. The government should be urged to proclaim the 1976 Regulatory legislation, move quickly to establish the equivalent of Tier 2 as a Regulatory goal to be met in tandem with the progress of the California standards (assuming court challenges to that program fail) and move on to rapid implementation.
August 28,2007
Conclusion of the post Promises, Promises on Auto Emissions
Gramps
Gramps
Facts and Fantasies on auto emissions
We begin to see that far from being at least a good start at reducing tail pipe emissions, the 2005 Voluntary Agreement injures the public interest. Here is a list of just some of the defects we have observed:
1. The agreement is primarily an intention to note or witness what is happening in the auto making field that would be done, and largely has been done, without any agreement.
2. The level of gas efficiency has not been going up, it has been going down for over 15 years and this agreement masks that fact while providing no improvements of its own.
3. This agreement is fundamentally BAU or Business As Usual in car making. If we need to reduce emissions in a serious way, we are deceived by it.
4. As a result of the way we have watched our Federal Government proceed Canada is pretty well at the bottom of the performance list for western nations. Only the USA is worse, though we are not even sure of that. Apart from Kyoto treaty obligations we are a long way from Japan or the European Union. It is stated in one of the best studies of the whole question: "The United States and Canada have the lowest standards in term of fleet average fuel economy rating, and they have the highest greenhouse gas emission rates based on the EU testing procedure".
(Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Vehicle Fuel efficiency Standards for Canada. Pollution Probe. February 2005. p.142)
5. By supporting this Agreement the Federal Government is assisting the car makers to avoid reductions they could and should be making, and hiding from Canadians that the Government already has a law that it can and should Proclaim, the 1976 Regulatory statute we have had on the books since then, and move promptly to regulate standards and enforce them.
6. In going along with the car makers the Federal government has allowed itself to be gradually moved away from legitimate public policy in reducing harmful emissions and into the promotion of sales interests of the car makers, which are not regulatory interests at all. The development of improved air conditioning in cars will reduce emissions overall by about 1.2 Mt CO2 e (as we can see from the California university study, Impact of Canada's Voluntary Agreement. U of California (Davis). Institute of Transportation Studies.N.P. Lutsey 2006) but that object is pursued to please buyers, not to cut emissions. There is no need to push the car makers to please customers, as they are regularly doing that anyhow. We are permitting a car maker distraction activity to deceive the public.
7. Much the same can be said about the gradual substitution of lighter parts or new materials in the construction of car engines and bodies, which is also contributing a small amount to reductions (or increased power), as we can learn by review of the Lutsey study. It is however ridiculous for the Government to stand beside the industry ad men as they brag about the marvels of tail pipe emission reductions being achieved when the little that is done is simply the normal development of autos and is not undertaken to reduce emissions.
To do that would require the setting of standards that forced the car makers to substitute emission reduction for power increases, which they do not wish to do and do not have to do at present. Thus power improvement itself will lead to a modest 0.9 Mt CO2e emission reduction over the whole period of 1999 to 2010, but we need to do a great deal more than that. The same goes for variable valve lift, direct gasoline injection, cylinder deactivation and the other high tech terms we have been fed.
Despite industry bragging in the web page of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturer's Association, we have not adopted a non-contentious way to bypass controversy and magically deliver painless emission control, we have just put ourselves in the position of suckers applauding carnival pitchmen while those elected to serve our true interests have gone along for the ride. If there have been any real improvements that is due to the influence of US standards development, which died over a decade ago excepting the push from California. However the Americans have not been heroes either, and we bump along at the bottom of world efforts, with them.
8. US standards are now voluntary as the Bush administration doggedly seeks to sabotage and delay any standard setting, though the EPA is going forward with Tier 2 now that the Supreme Court has largely brushed aside the Bush administration hindrance that delayed Federal Standards for CO2. While California has projected improvements in its 2006 legislation, it is contested by the car makers in the Courts. It is not that the goal of a 1/3 improvement over current standards (if they were being met) in the US, or the goal of 120 grams per kilometer in the EU, ( a standard being fought over now), cannot be realized. It is a question of the public will involved. against the opposition of the car makers.
9. The car makers use many dodges to fight against standards improvements. One is the claim that Canada is not a big enough market to do anything that varies from what the Americans do. We have seen that all kinds of different initiatives are happening in the US with individual states adopting the California law of 2006 (they can be called CAFE plus, or Tier 2) because of the failure of the Federal government to act. California does have regulation now and its population is similar to Canada. If they can cause the car makers to get moving on standards, and they certainly have, why can we not do so. We are a separate sovereign country and should have less difficulty than California. There some movement in some Canadian provinces to pick up the California legislation (BC).
10.There is good reason for suspicion that the car makers in Canada will not meet their promise to deliver 5.3 Mt CO2e even though they intended to do it without moving a muscle, so to speak. This is because they must first of all get the Federal government to agree to give them credit for everything that has happened to cars, which normally would be politically assured.
As Canadian federal politics is now developing that could become a very unpopular move for a government heading into an election before 2010. We do not know what the individual car makers have been doing, and it may be their industry association does not either, and never will. If the agreement becomes no longer a useful publicity tool, the car makers will simply drop it, behind a screen of lies about how the government has not been reasonable. Then our government will have no agreement, no progress that is provable, no data, no data bank for the past 10 years from industry, and no knowledge of what each company has been doing.
Of course it could be that the government has been collecting data all this time. One imagines federal inspectors secreting this or that car and measuring the tail pipe product. But it is pretty hard to get industry or company wide averages out of that. So it may be the case that the sooner the government tells the car makers to take their agreement and shove it, the better.
11. We can see some of the double dealing we can expect from the car makers in a few items already. For example, the Tier 2 regulations coming up in the US. Will the car makers get credit for those, say in nitrous oxides? One industry statement is referred to in the Lutsey study to the effect that there is "no double billing for NOx" but in a different statement it is set out that the Canadian auto industry expects to be credited with GHG emissions reductions for their actions in response to the Tier 2 standards ( in this case established for pollutant criteria control).
12. The same problem will surely come up with respect to fuel substitution such as blending ethanol in gasoline. A government official has stated that this is outside the Voluntary agreement but that is probably because the government has its own program to promote ethanol, so it would not want to see any improvement credited to two different programs. But who is ready to bet that the car makers will not claim it, and have already figured on a credit for it. The California study estimates that ethanol will reduce emissions by 0.68% in one year, 2010, and this is about 12.8% of the total of 5.3 Mt CO2e the car makers have promised.
13. And there are wild cards that the car makers will surely make a fuss about. Real world driving is not the same a lab conditions tests, and so standards need to allow for reality. There is plenty to argue about here. The Voluntary agreement assumes a gap of 20% but each new study seem to be widening the gap. Will our government throw up their hands when the car makers go off into a long argument about that.This item may amount to as much as 1.12% of the reduction (21.2% of the total 5.3 Mt CO2e) car makers promise.
14. It has turned out that tire pressure has a role in emission reduction and drivers need to be educated about that (apparently it could amount to as much as 0.5% of on road fuel use. The car makers in Canada have already announced they will be claiming for that. Can we doubt they will put in a claim for the One Tonne Challenge (a program since abandoned by the new Conservative government in its determination to get rid of whatever the last government was doing), and other driver education programs. But how can car makers claim a credit for an improvement in emission reduction associated with a government mounted consumer education program? They will.
15. So we can see, following the detailed account in the California university study, the car makers can meet the promise of 5.3 Mt CO2e if they are credited with everything that has reduced emissions, whether it was the result of outdated reference case projections from 1999, or involved technologies already in use when the Voluntary agreement was signed, whether it was already set to occur due to previous agreements or would occur regardless of the Voluntary agreement (Tier 2,on road real life driving adjustments, harmonized fuel consumption with USA, ethanol adjustment) or whether the result of regulations made for reasons other than climate change such as Tier 2 for specific pollutants and tire monitoring programs for safety reasons, even driver education.
There is plenty for government to resist there in the Government-Industry committee set up by the Voluntary Agreement to "adjust" the claims of the car makers to ensure "fairness". It is hard to see even the pro-business Harper regime going for all of it, but where are we if they do? And how will we know what they are about to do until after they have done it and put out the usual joint statement.
16. If the industry obtains credits, as described in the California study, since the Government-industry group that is supposed to be functioning under the Voluntary agreement has not published anything, then the result can be a little greater that 5.3 Mt CO2e. The industry will make its "contribution". The Lutsey study also considers a more strict definition for the car makers to match. This one would be based on new emission reductions that did not include already established programs as GHG reduction initiatives. In other words this program would not credit the already established vehicle fuel and technology trends. In this case the target of 5.3 Mt CO2e reduction by 2010 is not met.
17. The conclusions of the California study are sobering:
"The question arises as to whether the intent of the MOU is to witness a 5.3 Mt CO2e emission reduction or to actually be responsible for causing a 5.3 Mt CO2e emission reduction. It is apparently possible for the MOU agreement to be met with little or no impact on GHG emissions from Canada's fleet. If the MOU oversight committee decides to credit each of the mechanisms discussed, the primary role of the Canada GHG MOU would be to simply re-label a series of already-established programs as a GHG reduction initiative. "
Impact of Canada's Voluntary Agreement Lutsey U of Cal (Davis) 2006 at p.31
18. For the reasons set out Gramps concludes that the industry will try to push the government into accepting industry credit that makes the Agreement a mockery. Whether it succeeds or fails depends on public pressure on the issue of accountability. Either way, we have lost a lot of time. The government should be urged to proclaim the 1976 Regulatory legislation, move quickly to establish the equivalent of Tier 2 as a Regulatory goal to be met in tandem with the progress of the California standards (assuming court challenges to that program fail) and move on to rapid implementation.
August 28,2007
Conclusion of the post Promises, Promises on Auto Emissions
Gramps
Gramps
THE URBAN BULLY
Part 3
Another approach that works is to show that a bully who claims some special knowledge or experience does not know what he is talking about. If this can be brought forward with really simple, short and plain speech, it can be effective. If it can be further refined and expressed as comedy the bully can be undressed in public as surely as a goalie who goes to the left then is faked to the right (to the endless delight of pretty well everyone except the goalie's family). This requires skill and luck but happily a genuine and persistent research effort can substitute for these to some extent. But be sure to have your material reviewed by several knowledgeable people and check your facts two, three times. Try to avoid errors like spelling mistakes. Bullies are usually pretty thin on the ground even about subjects they pretend to be well versed in, and they tend to leave off a research effort as soon as they find something they can use to assault victims with, so they tend to be relentless on common and small stuff like spelling where they feel sure of their ground or can use a computer device like spell check. The essential thing is to realize that a bully wants to bully and does not really care about getting at the truth of an issue and so will not dare to press too far into areas requiring detailed knowledge of a subject.
Some hints for dealing with bullies in the workplace.
Identify that you really are dealing with a bully. This may require enough restraint to wait for the second attack, especially if you have an urge to deliver an instant counter attack.
An immediate response may be to brace the bully with an angry reply in words (but not in deeds since that will get you fired from the workplace). This is like responding with a five-second stare. It is not much much but it will cause the bully to start wondering if it has really picked a safe target. This is all that is useful in the way of a direct answer.
Counter-attack the audience. Go up to the first person near you and ask: "Do you support bullying of employees here?" They will not say yes, and neither will anyone else though someone may say you are making a big deal out of nothing. But that can only come from an even lower form of life: the Common Urban Bully Stooge, a creature even more cowardly than a bully. Just say"boo" and they will go away.
You can follow up with a declaration that you will file a grievance since this will not stop unless action is taken and you have been assured by the crew that bullying is not the policy. Then do it, exactly, and steady yourself to push the procedure all the way. You will succeed but understand that this is what the "fight" of this particular fight is all about. Hold your ground, your tongue, and your temper. If you are in a non union shop, type a notice and put it on the employee notice board or the safety board stating that you have been harassed by a named person and have written to management to ask that they enforce their harassment policy; and if they do not have such a policy you will go to Human Rights (Provincial Agency). If your note is removed (it will be) put it up again, and repeat as required. Ignore nasty little asides by low level management about how we all have to get along here, or that you are not liked for your efforts and are risking your job, or the bully is really a good old boy, and so on. Nobody really likes the bully, not even his stooges,so hold steady, do not respond to distractions, say absolutely nothing to the bully and you will probably succeed after some pretty miserable shifts. Avoid at all costs any important errors in your own job. Never attack the management directly unless the bully is one of them. The company cannot be seen to defend or support bullying, and that is the lever you must push on. Always remember that a bully injures production or morale or both in any plant and most managers know that intuitively.
Part 4 to follow
Another approach that works is to show that a bully who claims some special knowledge or experience does not know what he is talking about. If this can be brought forward with really simple, short and plain speech, it can be effective. If it can be further refined and expressed as comedy the bully can be undressed in public as surely as a goalie who goes to the left then is faked to the right (to the endless delight of pretty well everyone except the goalie's family). This requires skill and luck but happily a genuine and persistent research effort can substitute for these to some extent. But be sure to have your material reviewed by several knowledgeable people and check your facts two, three times. Try to avoid errors like spelling mistakes. Bullies are usually pretty thin on the ground even about subjects they pretend to be well versed in, and they tend to leave off a research effort as soon as they find something they can use to assault victims with, so they tend to be relentless on common and small stuff like spelling where they feel sure of their ground or can use a computer device like spell check. The essential thing is to realize that a bully wants to bully and does not really care about getting at the truth of an issue and so will not dare to press too far into areas requiring detailed knowledge of a subject.
Some hints for dealing with bullies in the workplace.
Identify that you really are dealing with a bully. This may require enough restraint to wait for the second attack, especially if you have an urge to deliver an instant counter attack.
An immediate response may be to brace the bully with an angry reply in words (but not in deeds since that will get you fired from the workplace). This is like responding with a five-second stare. It is not much much but it will cause the bully to start wondering if it has really picked a safe target. This is all that is useful in the way of a direct answer.
Counter-attack the audience. Go up to the first person near you and ask: "Do you support bullying of employees here?" They will not say yes, and neither will anyone else though someone may say you are making a big deal out of nothing. But that can only come from an even lower form of life: the Common Urban Bully Stooge, a creature even more cowardly than a bully. Just say"boo" and they will go away.
You can follow up with a declaration that you will file a grievance since this will not stop unless action is taken and you have been assured by the crew that bullying is not the policy. Then do it, exactly, and steady yourself to push the procedure all the way. You will succeed but understand that this is what the "fight" of this particular fight is all about. Hold your ground, your tongue, and your temper. If you are in a non union shop, type a notice and put it on the employee notice board or the safety board stating that you have been harassed by a named person and have written to management to ask that they enforce their harassment policy; and if they do not have such a policy you will go to Human Rights (Provincial Agency). If your note is removed (it will be) put it up again, and repeat as required. Ignore nasty little asides by low level management about how we all have to get along here, or that you are not liked for your efforts and are risking your job, or the bully is really a good old boy, and so on. Nobody really likes the bully, not even his stooges,so hold steady, do not respond to distractions, say absolutely nothing to the bully and you will probably succeed after some pretty miserable shifts. Avoid at all costs any important errors in your own job. Never attack the management directly unless the bully is one of them. The company cannot be seen to defend or support bullying, and that is the lever you must push on. Always remember that a bully injures production or morale or both in any plant and most managers know that intuitively.
Part 4 to follow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)